- User Since
- Dec 5 2012, 4:53 PM (411 w, 1 d)
Add another test
How is this supposed to work practically? A huge number of functions passes want to add intrinsic declarations
Wed, Oct 21
I disagree with this change. SimplifyCFG should continue to pass in options for transform options as is done for the others. I don't think avoiding duplication between the new PM and code that will be deleted is worth it
Tue, Oct 20
Mon, Oct 19
Sat, Oct 17
Couldn't this try to preserve the implicit operands?
Fri, Oct 16
Merged into 0a7cd99a702595ccf73c957be0127af9f25fb9a2
Can you add a test that directly checks the mode setting in the output
I don't see why this is emitting this compare in the first place, but this is just doing the same thing that's already done here
Thu, Oct 15
This will change the ABI, so I don't think belongs as a subtarget property
Wed, Oct 14
Remove requires, and change FunctionCount
I disagree with this (maybe it's OK for frontend work), and you should run all target tests before committing backend changes. For this test it doesn't actually require the target so I've just dropped the REQUIRES
Automatically folding legalization artifacts makes me a bit nervous. What happens if you want to legalize a constant by widening, and the legalizer wants to insert the trunc from a widened constant?
Tue, Oct 13
Was there anything that ever set these?
This could do better by checking the range metadata on the memory operand, but I don't think that's wired into the IR->MIR lowering now (if we ever even attach this to intrinsic calls)